tv [untitled] August 22, 2013 6:00pm-6:31pm PDT
project sponsor's proposed roof deck. measures, i think it's 258 square feet. if you look at the other 20, you'll notice that they average around 107 square feet. with the second-largest deck on the order of 160 feet. so, there's almost 100 square feet difference between the horner's deck proposed deck and what anyone else in our neighborhood has actually built. i think that the take away from that is this deck is [speaker not understood] in context. and in order to have a functional deck as indicated with what 20 other people had
done, that this deck could take a five-foot setback with the railing which would leave it near the top of this list. plus, it would also mitigate the privacy issue that we're facing. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes. i'll be quick. the simple idea is that when i stamped in my heels at five feet back, i can still see in the bedroom window and i don't think that's going to solve that. that's the concern basically that we have. we played the sectional game back and forth to retrieve the edge of the deck and make the edge of the deck solid. and somebody who is shorter than i am is perfectly cut off at the five foot length.
somebody who is as tall as i am or taller has a straight shot. and i think there's just a simple question of what is a reasonable approach to this, what is the intent of the planning code to allow this kind of habitation of an otherwise unused flat roof area. and that's all i have to offer. thank you. >> thank you. okay, the public hearing portion is closed. commissioner sugaya. >> yes, it's a difficult case, i think, for the commission because you kind of have to say on the one hand if you just look at what the architect's presented as just land use issues, or setback issues or residential design guideline issues, or whatever, then it probably isn't extraordinary.
but there seem to be other circumstances that we're always faced with. so, on the one hand, i think as a bedroom, since it's off the bedroom and if we assume that the project sponsor is going to live there for quite a long period of time and he's old enough that he's not going to grow very much taller, he's, you know, the five foot setback would probably work. i don't know which lady in the back is your wife, but i assume she's not any taller than you are. so, from one standpoint you could argue that five feet might work in this case and still have enough livability on the deck.
and i suppose -- and i don't know where to go with it exactly, but one idea might be to have -- although you may not want to go to the extent of spending the money for it, but you could have the roof deck as a deck and only pull the railing back five feet. and then at some future date -- and i'm trying to be sensitive here. at some future date, either the if this owner leaves, you're not going to sell your house since you've been there for 30 years. there might be a time in the future when there could be some extension or something like that. but that's neither here nor there. i don't know where to go with it actually. i'd like to hear more discussion among the commissioners. >> commissioner antonini.
>> well, i have some thoughts on this. i don't really care what the relative size is if the deck is relative to the other decks in the area. it's whatever is suiting the project sponsor. it looks like -- i'm not sure if this is 25 by 10. it looks like it probably runs the width of the house almost, and then i would assume it's about -- our project architect, is it 10 foot -- >> yeah, 25 by 12. >> please come to the podium. >> yeah, just tell me what the dimensions are. the setback from both -- the setback from one side property line approximately 4-1/2 to 5 feet. and the adjacent space happens to be above the street which is the series of steps, which is also one of the reasons why we can have the deck up against that property line and it's open to the public. >> right. what are the dimensions? it's probably in our paperwork.
i believe it's 20 by -- >> [speaker not understood]. >> okay, thank you. the point is the 12 because i was thinking 25 by 10, but now, you know, because as you start to pull the thing back, particularly five feet, you start getting into a really small situation. your distance from the house, if you want to put a picnic table there, you want people sitting around it, you've got to have room for the table, room for the chairs. and, so, you know, it makes it difficult to have enough room to maneuver around there. it's not impossible, but it makes it less desirable. we've got 45 -- 43-1/2 feet of separation as was mentioned between the house, the d-r requestor's house and the location on the deck. even detached homes in san francisco frequently have -- if they're lucky -- three-foot separations. in the case of my house, which is in a detached neighborhood on the west side, three foot on each side. so, if i've in one of the rooms
looking south, my neighbor is in her bedroom there, we have the windows open and mine are open, and we can see each other. i mean, it comes with urban living, but this is an extremely long area there. so, i don't know that the idea or the solution of the fence i don't think is a good one because it's only going to cut the light and air to the bedroom in question of the d-r requestor. probably you want to get as much light and air in there. so, i don't see that as being a solution. but i'm not really sure that we need to cut a lot of size off of here. we have had situations often with our decks where we don't bring the railing all the way to the very end of the deck. it is -- i would entertain the possibility of recessing it a foot or, you know, two feet at the most away from there which still leaves you 10 feet. and that's enough room to maneuver around the table from the house to the side of the deck.
>> commissioner moore. >> since this particular deck is off a bedroom, i think the possibility of having a dining room table with people sitting around the table is somewhat limited, although people might do it. i think i generally favor decks to not be flush with the building wall for reasons, one, outside elevation, but also for reasons of [speaker not understood] the devil is in the details on that particular thing because not very -- if you have a solid [speaker not understood], do a good detail on the railing, it's not the easiest [speaker not understood]. i would be prepared to pull the deck two feet back and have that be a compromise. we do have a substantial separation, though, 45 feet
plus a grade to front which by itself is a combination of the vertical as well as the slope distance, which makes it somewhat unlikely somebody to stand at the edge and intentionally stare down, that's not how life works. there is a sensitivity to the health of the neighbors. i'm sure the neighbors will not send their guests or themselves to the edge in order to stare down there. having said that, i would be comfortable of taking d-r and asking for a two-foot setback off the deck to a 10 by 21.5 and leave it with that. >> is that a motion? >> it is a motion, yes. >> second. >> commissioner hillis? call the question. >> on that motion to take d-r and approve the project setting back the deck's depth by two feet, reducing the deck's depth 2 feet to 10 feet, on that motion, commissioner antonini?
>> i'm sorry, i'm not sure if it's 10 feet or 10.5. >> 10 feet. >> is that correct -- >> i was pulling it back by two feet, that's correct. >> i think it was testified that the depth was 12.5. >> 12 and 12, 12 and 1 inch. >> 10 foot 1 inch, close enough. >> reducing the depth of the deck by 2 feet. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> no. >> and commission president -- excuse me, commission chair wu? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes by a vote of 5 to 1 with commissioner sugaya voting against. commissioners, that will place you on public comment. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? okay.